Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Minnesota homeowners, alleged that neither Aurora nor MERS were entitled to foreclose on the properties at issue and that W&G knowingly made false representations regarding Aurora's authority to foreclose. The court held that the district court properly found that it had subject matter jurisdiction. The court also held that the district court was correct in determining that all of plaintiffs' claims against W&G lacked a reasonable basis in fact and law, therefore W&G was properly dismissed as fraudulently joined. The court partially reversed as to the dismissal of the quiet-title cause of action, but affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "Murphy, et al v. Aurora Loan Services, et al" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from the ruling of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment to SunTrust and denying summary judgment to debtors, on debtors' adversary complaint that challenged SunTrust's standing to enforce a promissory note and deed of trust on debtors' property, and sought to remove the deed of trust from the chain of title to such property. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that SunTrust was entitled to enforce it and the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court properly used evidence from the affidavit of SunTrust's representative and properly applied judicial estoppel. View "Knigge, et al v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this suit in Minnesota state court challenging the foreclosure of the mortgage of their home. The Bank defendants removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), as did the PFB defendants. The district court granted the motions to dismiss and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the lack of any factual allegations regarding PFB rendered plaintiffs' complaint deficient and the district court did not err in dismissing it for failure to state a claim. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the Bank, finding no merit in plaintiffs' claims. View "Butler, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Missouri Bank sued OneBeacon for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The court held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for Missouri Bank on its breach-of-contract claim and rejected OneBeacon's claim that it did not breach Insuring Agreement (D) by denying Missouri Bank's claim because Insuring Agreement (D) did not cover losses resulting from fraudulent faxes. The court also held that the district court's finding that OneBeacon had reasonable cause to deny Missouri Bank's vexatious refusal to pay claim was not clearly erroneous. View "Missouri Bank and Trust Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Raynor sued National Rural, a number of its officers, and alleged co-conspirators in a qui tam action for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-33. Raynor alleged that National Rural was violating the FCA by receiving Farmer Mac investment funds in violation of federal law. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to Raynor and he appealed. The court held that Raynor's complaint did not meet the standard of particularity required to survive the motion to dismiss and the district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 9(b). Even accepting Raynor's facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences most favorably to him, the complaint failed to allege the falsity of each claim. The district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Raynor's request to amend his dismissed complaint a fourth time or in denying his motion to reconsider that dismissal. View "USA, ex rel. John Raynor v. National Rural Utilities Co Op, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The government alleged that Defendant's sale of collateral pledged as security for a loan from a bank and his failure to carry out his disclosure duties under the security agreement amounted to a scheme to defraud for purposes of the bank, mail, and wire fraud statutes. The district court dismissed the indictment, finding (1) a false representation is a required element of a federal fraud offense and the indictment failed to allege any express misrepresentation by Defendant; and (2) absent a statutory, fiduciary, or independent disclosure duty, nondisclosure was insufficient to state a fraud claim under any of the charged offenses. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the indictment for failure to state an offense, as the indictment failed to sufficiently allege a scheme to defraud under the mail, wire, and bank fraud statutes. View "United States v. Steffen" on Justia Law

Tracy and Steve Lind filed this suit after Defendants attached funds in the Linds' joint bank account pursuant to Minnesota's garnishment laws. The Linds alleged that Defendants deprived Tracy of her due process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court dismissed both claims, concluding (1) Tracy had received constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity for a hearing; and (2) the Linds failed to allege any independent violation of the FDCPA in the complaint. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Tracy had actual notice and an opportunity for a postdeprivation hearing, her due process rights were not violated when Defendants attached funds from the Linds' joint bank account pursuant to the Minnesota garnishment statutes; and (2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Linds' FDCPA claim, as the Linds alleged no specific acts that demonstrated violations of the Act. View "Lind v. Midland Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the president and owner of Company. Plaintiff and Company were sued by an employee for sexual harassment, among other claims. Plaintiff retained Law Firm to represent him and Company. The district court entered judgment against Company. The court later granted Company's motion for a new trial, and the parties subsequently settled. Plaintiff was the personal guarantor on the loans and credit lines provided by lenders to Company. After the original jury verdict, banks and lenders refused to continue extending credit to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff's real estate holdings crumbled, causing Plaintiff to lose dozens of commercial and residential properties. Plainiff then sued the attorney who acted as lead defense counsel and Law Firm (collectively, Appellees), contending that Appellees committed a series of negligent errors during their representation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees and dismissed Plaintiff's claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that his loss of net worth was proximately caused by the actions of Appellees. View "Hamilton v. Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, LLP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, successors in title to land located in Arkansas, brought a declaratory judgment action in Arkansas state court against AgriBank, FCB, seeking to quiet title to oil and gas rights that AgriBank held in Plaintiffs' land. AgriBank removed the case to federal district court. The district court granted AgriBank's motion to dismiss, identifying two bases on which to do so: (1) that a regulation promulgated by the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) specifically approved the sort of ownership interests held by AgriBank that Plaintiffs now attacked; and (2) that the challenge to AgriBank's oil and gas rights was based on a repealed act of Congress. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the case under its first rationale, as the reservations at issue enjoyed the FCA's approval. View "Nixon v. AgriBank, FCB" on Justia Law

Four named plaintiffs filed three separate class action lawsuits in state court alleging, inter alia, that three Missouri credit unions, by participating in a subprime motor vehicle lending and investment program administered by now-bankrupt Centrix Financial, LLC, violated provisions of the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code (Mo UCC) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). Defendants removed under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to dismiss the complaints. The district court issued three identical orders dismissing all the state law claims. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the three appeals and affirmed, holding that plaintiffs' Mo UCC claims were time-barred and that the MMPA expressly exempted Missouri credit unions. View "Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union" on Justia Law